–Yes, that is me on the left–then try to associate literalism with a ‘high’ view of Scripture.), then begins with the problem of literalism. Should be a good series.

Literally not literal? “After the death of Joshua, the Israelites inquired of the LORD, “Who shall go up first for us against the Canaanites, to fight against them?” The LORD said, “Judah shall go up. I hereby give the land into his hand.” Judah said to his brother Simeon, “Come up with me into the territory allotted to me, that we may fight against the Canaanites; then I too will go with you into the territory allotted to you.” So Simeon went with him.”

I noted and blogged this one also as I am becoming quite a fan of Biologos.

Much to my surprise the issue of Biblical Unicorns has arisen, of which I knew nothing about, however, the Answers in Genesis website sure do, and argue that this was indeed a true animal as they hold to the literalist view.

Has anyone else ever come across the issue of unicorns before? I’m not sure what to make of it.

I blogged on the AiG unicorn thing a while back, I may have actually found the AiG link in the comments here.

That quite the example of bad literalism. The interesting (and maddening) thing to me about the AiG article is they *require* the biblical author not be mistaken about unicorns. It seems reasonable to think the author *may have* been referring to a creature that really existed, either a now extinct unicorn, or to another creature with one horn. But they disallow that the author may just have believed that mythical (and not real) unicorns existed. As though that would change the word to Job one bit…

I guess a big problem with literalists is that they tend to require that others hold the same interpretation they do.